Home Forums Discussions Feedback and Recommendations MS SQL vs. mysql

Dr. Bertman:
Kindly review the real utility of mysql. It is a superior product compared to MSSQL
1) It will provide robust database server at low cost
2) All platforms including Linux, most versions of windows including 2000 and earlier supported. Hence a ubuntu machine can potentially work as a AC server for large practices.It avoids the hassles of windows server installation. Your program will run at least 10times faster and not crash
3) Highly secure Remote trouble shooting for ubuntu linux platform is easier than for windows.
4) Ubuntu machine is easy to configure as a highly secure file and database server for internet access of AC.
5) AC can then function like an enterprise product.You can also sell the hardware+software through interested resellers. A better business model.
6) Avoids the trap of frequent hardware and OS upgrades imposed by MS software.

Dr. Murali,

These are all good questions. But, are you actually suggesting that the actual AC user will switch to a Linux server if available for the reasons you give? This is not going to happen.

And, are you really suggesting that AC on Ubunt will run 10 times faster?

Finally, I believe Jon's business model is based on the least common denominator or the lowest fruit. When over 90% of users are on Microsoft products, it makes sense to market your product to those using Microsoft.

I am sorry that I am answering for Jon, but we talked about SQL for years while his program thrived on Access. My guess is he researched SQL Express thoroughly before he made his decision.

Thanks.

I think part of it is also that the program has been built on .net and Access, so it is easier to work with MS in this situation, including during the migrations to SQL Expresss. I think GK could confirm or deny that.

Anyway, if you are going to go that route, don't you get someone saying something about PostGreSQL being better, then an argument, and near the end of that, someone pipes up to say, "what about Firebird SQL".

yeah, i heard firebird sql was great too (whereas my sql seemed to be mishandled by sun--altho to be honest, i haven't developed for either before, so this is seconhand info)

i think it's all about developing client-end stuff, and using MS solutions helps keep things integrated. altho i'd love to see a linux solution too (without wine or emulators), it's about the numbers and majority.

if you want something in firebird sql flavor, take a look at synapse emr http://synapsedirect.com/
i believe it's workware (like it only costs you the time to help other users out). doesn't look as well fleshed out as AC, but you could probably customize it a lot more.

I am loathe to respond to this post but here goes. I've already said my "Hail Mary's."

When I read this my mind went immediately to Dante's Divine Comedy: I am still languishing in purgatory for mentioning SQL Server 8 months ago. I can only imagine which level you are going to. ROFL.

The decision to go to SQL Server is not an easy one for any developer. I know it was a serious, but necessary decision. One of the reasons developers choose a RDBMS platform/OS is market penetration, which equals familiarity for the end users and support staff. This makes for lower support costs.

Most of the Physicians who use AC are small practices. I doubt having a ubuntu server in their WINDOWS environment would be a pleasant experience.

Please see the following article which compares MySQL 5.0 to SQL Server 2005
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?design.4.594808.40

I use two different SQL Products:
1) SQL Server 2005/2008 now mostly 2008 because it supports geospatial data, as well as FileStream which allows you to store unstructured data (files) in the database. Can you say secure document management?

2) VistaDB which is a small footprint SQL Engine, whose Syntax is INTERCHANGEABLE with T/SQL 2005, and is .Net compatible. www.vistadb.com,

With all due respect to N. Murali and you make some good points, George's answers are dead on.

I know..I know...you don't like being "dead" on. lol

Killed twice in one week!!!

If I were advising Jon where to go? I would be running up and down screaming Azure Services Platform, and a web based UI. Zero foot print, of course the limiting factor is BROADBAND PENETRATION!

I thought you already recommended the ASP and web-based UI. No zero foot prints here. AC is the home of the Sasquatch, lol.

Besides, you're like a cat right George?

http://www.microsoft.com/azure/isv.mspx



Give customers choice. Adopt cloud-based technologies in a way that makes sense for your applications and your customers. Add value to existing applications by using the services platform to create applications that run entirely in the cloud or hybrid solutions that combine the benefits of on-premises and cloud applications. Offer new user experiences via the Web, on connected devices, and through social experiences across a community of users.
Bullet icon

Offer software as a service. Reduce the infrastructure necessary to deliver and run software and services to customers by using the infrastructure offered by the Azure Services Platform. Reduce the hardware footprint necessary for customers to run applications, and provision new customers quickly by using the services platform. The reduced cost of deploying and maintaining applications and services on the Azure Services Platform means that your products are more affordable. The lower cost reduces the risk associated with your application, expanding the potential market available to your business.
Bullet icon

Continue building on what you have. Providing cloud capabilities doesn’t require rewriting existing on-premises applications built on years of investments. Augment those applications with services offered by the Azure Se

I know very little about Linux, so this is just an intersting article. I believe the Pro Linux article is there as well. I would have to find it if anyone were interested.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=556&tag=nl.e071

I agree with a lot of the information above - it is important to remember that ASP type software is not for everyone. My DSL can be very sporadic and in a rural community it may not get fixed fast. I really want to be able to operate even if my DSL or fiberoptic line is down.

For some people the Cloud is a neat idea - a single provider in the city or one who does house/nursing home calls might really like this.

As far as Linux goes - I think it would require too much work for the technology impaired. I think it is probably cool if you like to fool around "under the hood".

I remember when EMRs were first breaking in. There was an EMR called Logician Internet which became Medscape Encounter, then went bankrupt. That was an ASP. It's funny, because it was eight or so years ago, and it was an awesome program. The government really missed out, because you could communicate with others on it.

To this day, it still made the best progress note ever. It was a think of beauty. Too bad its big brother, Logician, or Centricity or whatever didn't learn from its progress note. Logician probably makes the most redundant, too large, progress note of all time.

Good points, Steven.

I think that I will chime in with the linux angle.

First I think Ubuntu is a great linux distribution and works great in the appropriate environment. Unfortunately a medical practice EMR is not one of them in my opinion.

1. Most users of AC still have need for other applications to work along side their EMR product. AC is not a monolithic system that encompasses all aspects of a practice's computer need. They are not an Apple. Even if you get AC to work on linux you will still have problems with software like radiology viewers, glucose monitor software, practice management software, etc. Many software products used in medicine do not have a linux version. Also hospital products will more than likely not support a linux installation.

2. Unfortunately a lot of web based software used in medical technologies requires internet explorer. I am not going to debate IE verse firefox. You could use WINE or Crossover Office to run IE but you would still need a windows license and use of IE on linux is a legal gray area (although it works fine).

3. Ubuntu server is not "easy" to use. Although a great product, the fact is most AC users are not going to be able to configure a server using the command prompt and hand writing config files. I have used both ubuntu and win2003 SBS. SBS is easier to use with the wizards. More importantly you can get help from local IT resources with Windows where linux support will be more difficult. Local hospitals will not support linux installations as they help their referral base practices install and maintain IT services.

4. You stated in your post about the frequent hardware and software changes that are required to use Windows. In fact ubuntu LTS 8.04 expires 2010 whereas Win2003 expires 2010 with extended support to 2015 and Win2008 expires 2015 with extended support to 2018. Ubuntu LTS has a shorter lifespan than Windows 2003 or 2008 as each LTS release is three years. Of course Ubuntu will still be supported in stable releases between LTS versions and the next LTS should allow migration from 8.04. Frequent upgrades is not always a bad thing.

5. Windows has a good remote access feature.

6. If AC were to use linux they would be better off with Red Hat or Novell Suse. They have better enterprise support features than Ubuntu. Novell would be a better choice since Mono support would allow .Net applications like AC 4.x to work (although the code would have to be validated and adjusted). Of course Mono works in other versions linux. I would defer further discussion to .Net on Mono to a developer.

7. Free is not free if it requires more time and effort to make work. Linux is a great OS in certain applications. At some point in the future I plan on having terminals for patients to access in the waiting room to fillout paperwork and stuff like that. Linux would be a great set up, secure and difficult to hack. Most patients would not be able to install extra software or violate the set up. Linux is much easier lock up and control access. Also linux makes a good router/firewall/filter that can be deployed in a practice.

Just my thoughts

Geoff

Mr. Linus Torvalds certainly caused a lot of debates, lol. Anyone know if he made good money off Linux?

Redhat gave him stock options. He's worth several million. ~20? There is also a foundation that employs him so he can work on Linux full time.

Is it open source?

OSDL, Open Source Development Labs I think. You might run Ubuntu in a VM. I like the repositories.